[striking]

It's harder for me to agree with a library being licensed under GPL than if it were an entire application being licensed under GPL.

If someone's licensing an entire application that's usable in its own right, like an SQL server or emulator or game or kernel, then it totally makes sense that anything you build around it should have its code be accessible.

But if it's some smaller part of your entire codebase, I feel it's a little less reasonable for people who aren't working on something that's already *GPL licensed. Especially when you have middlewares or other proprietary pieces of code linked with yours. That, plainly and simply, will prevent you from using the library. (Except if it's the LGPL, which I've never had problems with. I personally like it the most, and I'd use it if I really cared about people upstreaming their changes.)

I'm not going to say "this library is bad because it's GPL'd" but it does mean I would avoid baking it into a programming language runtime, for example.

And it really bothers me that you have such a low opinion of people who comment here, and of people who disagree with you. Maybe it's just an exaggeration for argument's sake, but I feel like there are plenty of reasonable arguments against use of the GPL.